windbg_shadow_stack_compare

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it dumps both stacks side by side, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether shadow stack support is required, how errors are handled, or whether it operates on the current thread context. The description does not reveal enough behavioral traits to confidently predict side effects or prerequisites.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Dump') and efficiently conveys the core behavior and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no superfluous content or structural issues.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a clear purpose and basic behavior. However, it omits details about the output format (how 'side by side' appears), any error conditions (e.g., unsupported shadow stack), and the context (current thread). While not critically incomplete, more contextual information would help an agent use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'count' parameter, describing it as 'Number of qwords to compare' with a default of 32. The description itself does not mention the parameter or add any additional semantics, such as typical range or relationship to stack depth. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Dump' and clearly identifies the resources 'normal stack and shadow stack' and the purpose 'return-address divergence checks'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_shadow_stack (which likely dumps only the shadow stack) and windbg_call_stack, making the tool's unique role clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for quick return-address divergence checks' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternate tools or state when not to use it, such as when only the shadow stack is needed (use windbg_shadow_stack instead). This is strong but not fully explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.